Welcome to the family @Jon77 and you are blessed to be here.
1 Like
2 easy examples for you:
- We don’t leave our doors unlocked because someone who wants to break in is going to do it anyway. Criminals are not equally enterprising, intelligent, or committed. Raising the bar is a deterrent.
- Or more dramatically, when convicted pedophiles get out of prison, we restrict them from living around schools and other areas frequented by children. They’re criminals, but we don’t simply assume that because they’re criminals, passing laws won’t deter them.
Put plainly, we don’t demand that speed limits or any other traffic laws be 100% effective, and yet seat belts still save lives and yet we can still all drive.
2 Likes
How about we add an IQ test, maximum age, fit test, and minimum income requirements, then we void everyone’s right to carry or own firearms until they meet the minimum standard. That way we know only the most competent people protect all. Just because some states have training requirements, doesn’t make them any wiser or proficient than someone in a constitutional state… If we are going by generalizations all police are crooked, and all people in Washington support the chaos that was chaz. It’s actually strange if you think about it…I never saw any news of an autonomous zone last year in Kansas…
1 Like
If we say it’s ok if there’s a minimum standard, and the government can set conditions to a right assured us by the constitution, where does it stop? Eventually it ends with “You don’t need a gun to protect yourself and your family, the government will do that for you”… We are already on the way there fam…
1 Like
I don’t think the purpose of background checks, and permits is to establish competency, wisdom, or proficiency.
I’d be concerned about saying “not to have rules” because “it’ll never it stop”, for that to me would actually be chaos.
I’m not aware of any country without laws. If there was, which included anyone and everyone can bear arms, no questions asked, not sure I’d want to live in that high level of freedom in today’s day and age.
Trying not to be on one extreme end or the other, I ask everyone to read a copy of form 4473. It’s free to see online. One of the members herein who disagreed with me, don’t blame him, admitted he agreed with having the questions which are on that from. For those who don’t have a copy, please check it out. I’ve a link copy I can post.
I wouldn’t know who wrote it, but I wonder if a committee on background checks wrote it, could some on that committee be actual pro-firearm supporters. I think I’m one, sure hope so.
After I take my beat-down now, I’ll back to sleeping – with the dogs again. LOL. 
2 Likes
Hmmm. I suppose there is a slippery slope.
So why have any standards at all? Let’s just go ahead and get rid of background checks. After all, not everyone who sells guns is even required to conduct one anyway. We’ve already headed there anyway. Criminals are always so smart and enterprising so if any one of them wants to get a gun, there’s just no stopping them. So why not make it easier for criminals to purchase guns. Get rid of the middle man. Let’s make it easier for everyone to purchase guns legally. And why should we require people to be 18/21 or older? Why not 15? 8? 6? Age requirements are infringing on our kids’ rights. Does the constitution not apply to them?
This is probably going to be controversial, but I say teachers shouldn’t be the only ones packing heat. So many of us grew up hunting with our dads and when we started our families taught our sons and daughters how to use firearms, so why not let our kids go to school with firearms too? What’s that saying? “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” Well, my son is a good guy. Let him take my gun to school and if there’s a bad guy with a gun, let my 10-year-old handle him. He’s a good guy with a gun after all. What could possibly go wrong?
Now I know if we get rid of all standards, then felons guilty of violent assault or rape or pedophilia will be able to legally purchase firearms, but think about how much less inconvenience you and I and all other law-abiding gun-owners will get to avoid! While we’re at it, let’s also get rid of the 1986 FOPA law so anyone who wants a machine gun can get one. Are there any laws prohibiting us from buying body armor-piercing bullets, ya know so-called cop-killer bullets (since members of law enforcement are more likely to wear bulletproof vests generally)? Because if there are any laws like that, we should get rid of those too.
And after we’re all done, let’s make quick work of all these “voter ID” laws. After all, those constraints are also infringing on our constitutional right to vote.
1 Like
I’d love to see that link! My attitude is as follows: I’m from a family of gun-owners. You wouldn’t know it because we purposefully don’t draw attention to it. No one in my family and in my group of friends is afraid of guns. We respect firearms. Some of them, including myself, have taken the requisite training involving what the law says about using firearms and then the training involving how to use firearms–I’m a hell of a shot 
. The state of NC also requires that people who want to purchase a firearm, or at least a pistol (not necessarily a long gun), provide the sheriff’s office the authority to check with the state’s hospitals to check if you’ve ever been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward–and even then that doesn’t mean you won’t be able to purchase your gun. It just means that it’ll warrant further due diligence.
The overwhelming majority of Americans, those with guns and without, can easily pass that standard. Hell, the overwhelming majority of Americans could trip over that standard, it’s so low and it would mean criminals would have to work a good bit harder to procure their weapons.
Think about the last time a criminal took an automatic weapon and killed a bunch of people. Laws can work if we let them. Now if you want to argue that states and cities like NY or NYC go too far, you’ll get no argument from me.
1 Like
Also, there was.
This was just in November of last year.
Also this,
2 Likes
Laws only matter to those that abide by them. The people that obey the law are punished for it with more restrictive laws. As for the FOPA… I am a law abiding citizen who would enjoy fully automatic weapons… I would also like a few sbr’s, and some suppressors, but thank the NFA for sucking up that with a bunch of hoops and a ridiculous wait time…Since criminals are asshats, a lot of law abiding citizens miss out on that. I’m all about firearm training, but I believe it should be the individual that decides to be a responsibly armed citizen and further their training, not a requirement for the permission to carry. As far as the statistics, no state is perfect, not even New York (which I agree has gotten carried away). I feel that instead of manufacturers and tv being blamed for the actions of individuals, I feel that all LEO’s not be persecuted for the actions of a few, and I feel that law abiding citizens should not be punished for the actions of criminals. I’m not ok with my freedom being ■■■■■■ with because idiots break the law, period…which is what’s happening.
3 Likes
I see folks talkin bout standards n such… matter of opinion but IIRC there was a time when family and even schools taught a lot of what is needed to carry… IMHO need our educational system to teach it from about 1st grade on… over and over… but that’s just my opinion… and I will resist giving our Federal Government the ability to set those standards… as most states have reasonable training requirements and standards for carrying concealed as it is… I suggest leave it to the states… much like drivers licenses… just require other states to honor them… like they do a drivers license…
7 Likes
I do like this analogy.
The alternative would be something like if you have a drivers license from Vermont where the maximum speed limit is 65 mph, you can’t drive in Texas where the maximum limit is 85. Obviously, Vermont drivers have inferior testing and experience.
It’s just “common sense” motor vehicle law.
4 Likes
The right to bear arms stems from the right to life and liberty. If you put conditions on it, such as an IQ test, then you are saying that these people do not qualify for their right to life and liberty and thus must forfeit these rights to those who do.
Second, who sets the standards? Let’s say today the minimum IQ is 80. Next week, they decide it is 140. Now only 3% of the population can?
3 Likes
I get the part that there’s a natural element of danger and that we should be able to defend ourselves, I agree. I wouldn’t want laws which remove all of our rights and take away our ability to bear arms. However, at the same time, I believe it’s helpful to have certain laws in place as part of rules, regulation, and organization, which can actually be beneficial to our own 2A community. There are some laws where even I would also “drawn the line” with though.
Dear Gary. You got me good. I agreed with you, but if there’s an award for sarcasm, brother you win an Oscar for that. After getting through your first paragraph without a heart attack, I see how strong you made your point and I’m in your debt. You’re a breath of fresh air Sir.
Reminds me why there are laws around hunting and fishing as well, dates when one can hunt, size of the animal and number of game one can acquire – along with the fees for those hunting & fishing permits, and how those fees help maintain their own community.
Some from the anti-2A think some of us are cuckoo, and I’ve the empty acetaminophen bottles to prove that I hear it from them a lot. I’m just out to prove to them, that most of us are responsible and reasonable. Though novice I am, I’m hearing the anti-2A are focusing on semi-auto rifles and high-capacity pistols. Personally, not a problem for me, but I can respect how it is for some. My angst is when we have to adhere to Firearms Prohibited signage in stores and businesses; that I’d like to lobby against. But when I advocate for our rights, I want to connect and resonate with my opposition, as I need their support as well; Including those who are in the middle or on the fence, and do lend me their ear.
I read that in 2020, 40M Americans initiated the background check for a purchase, and that 8.5M Americans purchased their first firearm in 2020.
Firearm laws: I’m willing to forgo some freedoms in exchange for what to me seems like the right thing to do, for safety and security, as long as I can still legally “bear arms”, and I’m lucky that today I still can.
I’m gonna get a lot of flak for this, but I sometimes tell our youth, “Hey, do you want to be able to be hired for a decent job, help take care of your family, and even be able to legally carry a firearm one day, then never hit your girlfriend, never commit a crime, and if you’re feeling depressed, talk with someone about it and get help”.
I do see the benefits of states managing their own firearm laws, and how a national reciprocity can back-fire on us if written poorly per se. At the same time, I wish I could carry legally in those states I currently can’t. A slippery slope for sure.
Hope to see you again Gary, in more e-chats throughout the various posts. Thanks for those comparable and compelling stats. I sometimes think when it comes down to it, even when statistics are believed by most, it’s the hearts and minds of all or most who ultimately decide our laws.
Here’s that copy of form 4473. Apologies, I had meant form 4473, not 1473 (linked below). There’s no IQ test on it, thank goodness; Doubt we’ll ever be reduced to that. Take care “all”.
1 Like
The only way National Reciprocity will pass is if there is a republican majority in the House, a 60/40 majority in the Senate and a republican president. The bill has been introduced in every Congress since 2009 and has not passed. Some say that it would have passed when the House and Senate held majorities during President Trump’s first 2 years. It would not because the Senate did not have the 60 votes needed to pass. You can blame McConnell for this, but putting this on the floor for a vote when you know it does not have the votes to pass destroys your political clout.
5 Likes
They are legit! I’ve been working with them, NAGR, GGO & several others for decades. They aren’t like the knife in the back NRA which has sold us out repeatedly over the decades of their existence.
2 Likes
Hi Seth,
You can see my post above and see my opinion against the national reciprocity bill. I also believe that being unwilling to make any concessions will end any hope of getting to a reasonable solution.
That said, I appreciate that you have a desire to get to the reasonable solution and you’re willing to take action to get there, but I disagree with most of your points due to words like, all, must, and banned. These are not compromise words, they are absolutes. The problem we are facing is two sides demanding absolutes.
To solve a problem, you must first define it. I will not go into the full problem definition here, but for starters:
- Bad people get ahold of firearms and do bad things
- Good people are held responsible for those bad people doing bad things
- Sometimes good people get ahold of firearms and don’t know how to handle them safely (or don’t care enough to pay attention)
Contributing factors to consider:
- Some people harbor hatred for other people and enjoy doing and saying things to get a response (people who openly carry in a conspicuous/inciting/proving-a-point manner and people who make up terms like “ghost gun” - BTW, “assault rifle” was coined by the Nazis as an intentional propaganda tool)
- “Shall not be infringed” gets lost on some people
- Being responsible gets lost on some people
Data:
According to the CDC, in the US in 2018, there were 39,740 firearm-related deaths and 39,433 motor vehicle traffic deaths. Statistically equal…
Also according to the CDC, there are between 60,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year. The low end of this is almost double the total firearm deaths. You can only speculate how many more firearm deaths there could have been without defensive guns in the hands of good people. If only one life is saved, it was worth it.
Leading causes of death for context:
• Heart disease: 659,041
• Cancer: 599,601
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 173,040
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 156,979
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,005
• Alzheimer’s disease: 121,499
• Diabetes: 87,647
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 51,565
• Influenza and pneumonia: 49,783
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,511
I’m opposed to the national reciprocity bill because it lowers training and proficiency standards to the lowest common denominator. If you’re going to have licenses, they should mean something. I am in favor of constitutional carry, which would achieve the same thing without having to ask for permission and pay a fee to get the license.
Note: the only crime ever committed with a concealed handgun is the carrying of said handgun without a CCW license.
And finally, in my opinion, a US military veteran with no extenuating circumstances (i.e. felony conviction, professionally diagnosed mental instability, etc). should be exempt from any of these otherwise infringing actions. Show your active ID or DD214 - done.
2 Likes
Good evening,
With all due respect, can you please explain this paragraph? You are against national reciprocity, but for constitutional carry? Correct me if I am wrong, but national reciprocity would still require residents of states such as TX, CA, PA, OH, etc. to continue the requirements for a permit, but constitutional carry removes those requirements. Are you saying NR wouldn’t be fair because someone with no license can temporarily carry in your state, whereas you have to obtain a permit as a resident? To that point, even the most basic standards when it comes to firearms state to state aren’t fair in the first place… in TX I don’t have to have a capacity limitation, no specific design requirements, no wait times for firearm purchases, no foid card or whatever name the states that require them assign, no limit to how many different firearms I can carry, etc… Someone from CA can’t say that… Again, no disrespect intended.
The reason I am for national reciprocity is I don’t think it’s fair that I can’t visit NY, CA, or WA and protect myself and my family because my TX permit isn’t recognized there. I would love to visit the 9-11 memorial, Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty, Pacific Hwy, Redwood forest, visit family in Wa, etc… This is the reason, that for the foreseeable future, I will never see those states other than on a map.
Thanks,
Levi2
4 Likes
Essentially, when you visit any of these states, you give up the 2A rights afforded to you as a US citizen, not simply because they do not honor your license, but because you cannot even obtain a license in, for example, California which doesn’t grant non-resident licenses. In other words, “your US citizenship will do you no good here, we are better than you.”
It is a travesty.
3 Likes
Hi Levi2,
You summarized it fairly well. If some states have training and competency requirements, reciprocity should honor those that have complied with the requirements. And, while standards may vary from state to state, there should be some level of consistency in a reciprocity agreement. The national reciprocity bill does not provide for any level of consistency. It will allow someone from a state with no standards or requirements carry in a state with a high level of standards, as long as they obtain a card from their state. It eliminates the value of the license in the state with the stated standards.
Instead, why not level the field and remove the license from all states by having constitutional carry. This resolves your issue of travelling to states the preclude you now and it gets the government out of charging fees to provide ID cards.
The remaining issue is that of education and training, which becomes a separate issue.
Make sense?
Thanks,
Jonald
2 Likes